ML023400430
| ML023400430 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png |
| Issue date: | 12/05/2002 |
| From: | Pulsifer R NRC/NRR/DLPM/LPD1 |
| To: | |
| Pulsifer R M, NRR/DLPM, 415-3016 | |
| References | |
| 2.206 | |
| Download: ML023400430 (37) | |
Text
December 05, 2002 MEMORANDUM TO:
File FROM:
Robert M. Pulsifer, Project Manager, Section 2
/RA/
Project Directorate I Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION PETITION PURSUANT TO TITLE 10 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS, SECTION 2.206 (10 CFR 2.206) FROM MR. RAYMOND SHADIS Attached is the transcript of a conference call held on Monday, November 18, 2002, regarding a Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station 2.206 petition dated October 15, 2002, submitted by Mr. Raymond Shadis on behalf of the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution.
This call was requested to discuss the Petition Review Boards recommendation to reject this petition under 10 CFR 2.206.
Docket No. 50-271
Attachment:
As stated cc w/att: See next page
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station cc:
Regional Administrator, Region I U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406 Mr. David R. Lewis Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 2300 N Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20037-1128 Ms. Christine S. Salembier, Commissioner Vermont Department of Public Service 112 State Street Montpelier, VT 05620-2601 Mr. Michael H. Dworkin, Chairman Public Service Board State of Vermont 112 State Street Montpelier, VT 05620-2701 Chairman, Board of Selectmen Town of Vernon P.O. Box 116 Vernon, VT 05354-0116 Mr. Michael Hamer Operating Experience Coordinator Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC P.O. Box 250 Governor Hunt Road Vernon, VT 05354 G. Dana Bisbee, Esq.
Deputy Attorney General 33 Capitol Street Concord, NH 03301-6937 Chief, Safety Unit Office of the Attorney General One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor Boston, MA 02108 Ms. Deborah B. Katz Box 83 Shelburne Falls, MA 01370 Mr. Raymond N. McCandless Vermont Department of Health Division of Occupational and Radiological Health 108 Cherry Street Burlington, VT 05402 Mr. Gautam Sen Manager, Licensing Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC P.O. Box 0500 185 Old Ferry Road Brattleboro, VT 05302-0500 Resident Inspector Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 176 Vernon, VT 05354 Director, Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency ATTN: James Muckerheide 400 Worcester Rd.
Framingham, MA 01702-5399 Jonathan M. Block, Esq.
Main Street P. O. Box 566 Putney, VT 05346-0566 Mr. Michael R. Kansler Sr. Vice President and Chief Operating Officer Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
Mail Stop 12A 440 Hamilton Ave.
White Plains, NY 10601 Mr. John J. Kelly Director, Licensing Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
440 Hamilton Avenue White Plains, NY 10601
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station cc:
Mr. Jay K. Thayer Site Vice President - Vermont Yankee P.O. Box 0500 185 Old Ferry Road Brattleboro, VT 05302-0500 Mr. Raymond Shadis P.O. Box 76 Edgecomb, Maine 04556 Mr. David A. Lochbaum Union of Concerned Scientists 1707 H Street NW, Suite 600 Washington, DC 20006
ML023400430 OFFICE PDI-2/PM PDI-2/LA PDI-2/SC (A)
NAME RPulsifer LCox for MOBrien JAndersen DATE 12/4/02 12/3/02 12/4/02
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
Conference Call on the 2.206 Petition on Nuclear Plant Safety Docket Number:
50-271 Location:
(Telephone Conference)
Date:
Monday, November 18, 2002 Work Order No.:
NRC-666 Pages 1-25 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 Attachment
1 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
+ + + + +
3 CONFERENCE CALL ON THE 2.206 PETITION ON NUCLEAR 4
PLANT SAFETY 5
OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 6
DIVISION OF LICENSING AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT 7
(NRR/DLPM) 8
+ + + + +
9 MONDAY 10 NOVEMBER 18, 2002 11
+ + + + +
12 TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL 13
+ + + + +
14 The Conference Call on the 2.206 Petition 15 on Nuclear Plant Safety convened at 10:30 a.m., Bob 16 Pulsifer, Petition Manager, presiding.
17 PRESENT:
18 BOB PULSIFER NRC 19 RAY SHADIS NECNP 20 GARY SACHS Vermont Resident 21 DAVID LOCHBAUM UCS 22 DAVE PELTON Vermont Yankee Resident Office 23 JIM DEVINCENTIS Vermont Yankee 24 BOB WANCZYK Vermont Yankee 25
2 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 PRESENT: (CONT.)
1 CLIFF ANDERSON Region I 2
FRANK ARNER Region I 3
JACK GOLDBERG OGC 4
HERB BERKOW NRR 5
JIM ANDERSEN NRR 6
STU RICHARDS NRR 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
3 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 1
10:30 a.m.
2 Operations Officer: This is the 3
Headquarters Operations Officer. Do you want us to 4
wait a little more, or do you want to do a roll call 5
right now?
6 MR. SHADIS: It depends on who youre 7
asking, I guess 8
Operations Officer: Okay. Im going to 9
do a roll call right now, and if you could just 10 listen for, and repeat, your names. And whoever 11 else comes in, you may not hear their names, okay?
12 MR. SHADIS: Okay 13 MR. PULSIFER: Anyone else on 14 MR. SHADIS: Theres a batch of us.
15 Were waiting for the roll call.
16 MR. PULSIFER: Hello, this is Bob 17 Pulsifer. Who else do we have on the line here?
18 MR. SHADIS: You have Ray Shadis; Gary 19 Sachs from Vermont; David Lochbaum; Region I; and 20 Vermont Yankee.
21 MR. PELTON: You have the Vermont Yankee 22 Residents Office, as well.
23 MR. PULSIFER: And from the licensee, 24 who do we have?
25
4 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 (No response.)
1 Operations Officer: Okay. This 2
completes the roll call. If you want to start your 3
conference, go right ahead.
4 MR. DEVINCENTIS: From Vermont Yankee, 5
Jim DeVincentis and Bob Wanczyk.
6 MR. PULSIFER: Okay. Region?
7 CLIFF ANDERSEN: Region I, Cliff 8
Andersen and Frank Harnor.
9 MR. PULSIFER: Okay. Headquarters --
10 this is Bob Pulsifer, PRB. Im going to be the 11 project manager for this petition.
12 MR. GOLDBERG: Jack Goldberg 13 MR. BERKOW: Herb Berkow 14 MR. ANDERSEN: Jim Andersen and Stu 15 Richards 16 (Telephone interference.)
17 MR. PULSIFER: (in progress) -- 2.206 --
18 (Telephone interference.)
19 MR. PULSIFER: (in progress) -- this 20 year. A telephone conference was held on October 21 29th to discuss with you, Mr. Shadis, the merits of 22 your petition.
23 Last week, I informed you that the PRB 24 had recommended that your petition not be processed 25
5 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 under the 2.206 process. They have said that the 1
PRB had decided that there were insufficient facts 2
to substantiate a complete review by the NRC of 3
Vermont Yankees training program for operators and 4
maintenance personnel. Also, there wasnt sufficient 5
facts for a -- in the evaluation of the FSAR.
6 I had asked whether you wanted to 7
address the PRB on this recommendation, and you said 8
yes. And this teleconference is being recorded and 9
will be transcribed.
10 Mr. Shadis, do you have any comments or 11 questions?
12 MR. SHADIS: Well, yeah. Just to start 13 off, on our last call, in my understanding it was 14 not to discuss the merits of the petition. In fact, 15 we were advised that we could not discuss the 16 content of the petition. And I dont know how one 17 can discuss the merits without discussing the 18 content.
19 MR. PULSIFER: Mr. Shadis. You seem to 20 be going in and out.
21 MR. SHADIS: Okay. Well try it just a 22 little bit louder. On our last call, my 23 understanding is that we did not discuss the merits 24 of the petition. In fact, we were advised that that 25
6 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 call -- that the Board would not entertain any 1
discussion of the content of the petition. And its 2
beyond me to understand how one can discuss the 3
merits of a petition without discussing the content.
4 MR. PULSIFER: I understand, Mr. Shadis.
5 Youre right. It was for you to provide additional 6
information to help support the petition.
7 MR. SHADIS: But without discussing the 8
content?
9 MR. PULSIFER: Thats correct.
10 MR. SHADIS: Okay. I just want to get 11 it clear what -- you know, what the rules are.
12 Now, I would like to ask for some 13 clarification on your statement that there is 14 insufficient information or evidence presented in 15 the petition to support NRC action.
16 MR. PULSIFER: Under 2.206?
17 MR. SHADIS: Thats correct.
18 MR. PULSIFER: Right. 2.206, first of 19 all, asks for an enforcement action to be described.
20 In your petition, I did not see an enforcement 21 action actually prescribed. You did indicate that 22 you wanted the staff to review their program in the 23 FSAR, but there was no specific action required.
24 Also, there wasnt sufficient evidence 25
7 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 that I could see that supported a detailed review of 1
the program. Does the staff want to expound upon 2
that?
3 MR. LOCHBAUM: Ray, could I address that 4
for you?
5 MR. SHADIS: Certainly.
6 MR. LOCHBAUM: This is David Lochbaum 7
with the Union of Concerned Scientists.
8 MR. PULSIFER: Good morning.
9 MR. LOCHBAUM: I think the enforcement 10 action that was at least implicitly implied in Rays 11 petition essentially was a demand for information, 12 where you order the licensee to provide responses to 13 queries, and provide that information under oath or 14 affirmation.
15 Its not unlike -- you know, I saw the 16 letter, or I saw actually the response to the letter 17 that Vermont Yankee provided to questions from the 18 resident inspectors about the accuracy of the FSAR 19 and the information contained in the (inaudible) 20 documents relative to the RCIC system that was the 21 basis for Rays petition. So, I think that was the 22 enforcement action that was fairly clearly implied 23 in Mr. Shadis petition.
24 As far as to whether that constituted 25
8 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 enough information for the NRC to -- you know, was 1
that enough of a smoking gun to require that kind of 2
response, their information and subsequent 3
retraction of a report to the NRC expended resources 4
on both the licensees part and the NRCs part.
5 Several of your goals are to maintain safety; 6
improve public confidence; reduce unnecessary 7
burden; and improve Agencys efficiency and 8
effectiveness. And if youre getting false reports 9
from the licensee, I dont know that you meet all of 10 those goals. I think perhaps many of those goals 11 are being challenged.
12 From what I saw of the plant owners 13 response to the resident inspectors questions, they 14 stated that the FSAR and the design basis documents 15 were verified to be accurate, which begs the 16 question, you know, why did the operations personnel 17 or the people making safety calls at the plant not 18 using these documents that are now verified to be 19 accurate and complete. If they had bothered to use 20 them, that initial report probably would not have 21 been made and, therefore, the NRC resources would 22 not have been cycled in responding to it.
23 But, I think thats the basis for the 24 petition request and justification for why it might 25
9 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 be needed.
1 MR. PULSIFER: I understand. The 2
licensee did say that theyve placed this into their 3
corrective action program. And we will follow up on 4
that to ensure that that particular corrective 5
action has been addressed.
6 MR. SHADIS: I can tell you that, in 7
addition, we are deeply concerned that there is no 8
evocation of the facts of the incident by NRC. The 9
licensee, in public statements and in responding to 10 the resident inspectors questions, said they took a 11 conservative action by sending out their 12 notification. From the public point of view, it can 13 hardly be considered a conservative action, if its 14 based on the assumption that they have equipment 15 that they do not have.
16 I think that one thing that would go a 17 long way to securing public confidence is if NRC can 18 either validate or repudiate that kind of assertion, 19 that this is a conservative action. Id like to 20 know, as a member of the public, how this is a 21 conservative action.
22 I think, additionally, NRC advertised 23 the 2.206 petition process -- Ive got a copy of 24 NUREG 0215, Public Involvement, and it does say that 25
10 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 unsupported assertions would not be considered 1
sufficient grounds for action. But it does not 2
spell out that there is some sort of threshold for 3
information. Obviously, the information that we 4
based our request on is part of the public documents 5
and that it is substantiated information. So, some 6
NRC action, if you read NUREG 0215, it should be 7
forthcoming.
8 MR. PULSIFER: Okay. One second.
9 (Telephone interference.)
10 MR. BERKOW: This is Herb Berkow. Do 11 you have a copy of Management Directive 8.11?
12 MR. SHADIS: Well, I do, but I dont 13 understand how it applies to me.
14 MR. BERKOW: Okay, well --
15 It is an internal document, and its 16 meant to . But it provides the basis and the 17 guidelines upon which we make decisions, and its 18 informative. You know, its not -- obviously, it 19 doesnt give you any direction, but it does explain 20 how we do thingS. And also the fact that the -- not 21 to consider this under 2.206 doesnt mean that were 22 not going to address your concerns. It just means 23 that it will be addressed under a different 24 mechanism.
25
11 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 Anything that comes in as a petition is 1
2 (Telephone interference.)
3 MR. BERKOW: -- or we determine that it 4
doesnt meet the criteria for review as a petition, 5
it still gets a response. It just doesnt go into 6
the 2.206 process.
7 MR. SHADIS: I think I understand what 8
youre saying. I need to reiterate -- I tried to 9
say this in our very first call -- that you and the 10 Agency has published their regulations, included 11 them in the Code of Federal Regulations. There is 12 nothing in the Code of Federal Regulations about 13 thresholds for action other than the fact that the 14 request needs to be something that NRC can do; and 15 number two, it needs to be based on real 16 information, not unsupported assertions or, as they 17 say, general opposition to nuclear power.
18 And so, if you are going to pull in 19 additional restrictions on the acceptability of 20 2.206 petitions, I believe you have the burden to 21 publish that up front, along with your invitation to 22 participate. I mean, essentially, NUREG 0215 is an 23 explanation of how the public may participate; its 24 an invitation. And it does not include any notice 25
12 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 that there are additional hurdles other than the 1
fact that this stuff -- the information needs to be 2
substantiated and that the request needs to be 3
something within the purview of the NRC. So, again, 4
I want to make that clear to you, maybe theres 5
something wrong with the process, as NRC implements 6
it, if we dont provide that notice up front.
7 The other issue, how NRC is going to 8
respond to our concerns as expressed in the 2.206, 9
Im very interested in. I would like you -- if you 10 now know how youre going to respond to each of 11 these concerns, Id like to get your take on it.
12 MR. GOLDBERG: This is Jack Goldberg.
13 Management Directive 8.11 describes the process that 14 this Agency uses to evaluate and process 2.206 15 petitions or submissions by members of the public 16 that are submitted in the context of a 2.206 17 request.
18 There is a lot of information in that 19 management directive, which is routinely provided to 20 petitioners. That brochure that you are referencing 21 cant possibly include all of the detail thats in 22 the management directive. The management directive 23 has a lot more in it than is contained in those 24 brochures, which are intended to be just very brief 25
13 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 summaries of (inaudible) that are available. So --
1 MR. SHADIS: Well, excuse me, but the 2
Code of Federal Regulations is not intended to be a 3
brief summary. And you do not have anything in --
4 MR. GOLDBERG: The Code of Federal 5
Regulations is what it is. Thats the Commissions 6
rules.
7 MR. SHADIS: Well, yeah, but thats 8
whats available to the public to engage in this 9
process.
10 MR. GOLDBERG: I didnt interrupt you 11 when you were talking.
12 MR. SHADIS: Im sorry; excuse me, I did 13 not mean to be rude. Excuse me.
14 MR. GOLDBERG: If youre going to 15 interrupt me, Im not going to say anything more and 16 youll get a letter that explains the basis for our 17 response. If you want to proceed without 18 interrupting me and give me the same courtesy that I 19 gave you when you were speaking, then I will 20 continue.
21 The regulations are what they say.
22 There are lots of (inaudible) that we have and 23 policies and procedures that we have that are not 24 and need not rise to the level of a regulation.
25
14 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 There are many things in Management Directive 8.11 -
1
- in fact, most of the things in there were placed 2
in there in response to concerns that have been 3
expressed by members of the public over the years to 4
provide members of the public additional 5
opportunities to interact with the staff.
6 Many things that are not provided in the 7
regulations -- public meetings, telephone conference 8
calls such as this one, opportunities to comment on 9
proposed directors decisions before they become 10 final -- none of these things are provided in the 11 regulations. None of these things does this 12 Commission have to do in accordance with our 13 regulations, but are done pursuant to the management 14 directive, which was compiled to a large extent to 15 respond to concerns that petitioners and other 16 members of the public have.
17 Mr. Lochbaum knows very well because 18 hes participated in many of the discussions that 19 have led to many of the changes that are in 20 Management Directive 8.11, and many of them are in 21 there in direct response to his concerns and his 22 request. Now, as he knows, we have not done all the 23 things that have been requested, but we have done 24 many things. But for whatever reason and with that 25
15 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 historical background, the Management Directive 1
currently describes the Commission-approved process 2
for evaluating submissions submitted as 2.206 3
petitions.
4 As Herb Berkow explained, the issue that 5
you raised will be addressed in a written response, 6
even if its concluded that the submission doesnt 7
meet the criteria for treatment under 2.206. So, 8
its not a matter of whether your issue will be 9
addressed or not; its only a matter of in what 10 process will the issue be addressed.
11 MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Pulsifer.
12 MR. PULSIFER: Yes.
13 MR. WILLIAMS: Im a member of the 14 media, a daily newspaper, the Brattleboro Reformer.
15 Can I ask a question about this?
16 MR. PULSIFER: What is your name?
17 MR. WILLIAMS: Eesha Williams.
18 MR. PULSIFER: Williams, did you say?
19 MR. WILLIAMS: I cant follow a lot of 20 the jargon thats been said so far, but my question 21 is, in response to Mr. Shadis complaint that 22 Vermont Yankee said it had a piece of safety 23 equipment that it did not have, is the NRC concerned 24 about this issue, will it respond, and if so, when?
25
16 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 MR. PULSIFER: I dont know for sure.
1 Im sure we will be reviewing it. As I had said, we 2
will be following up with the corrective action item 3
thats in Vermont Yankees program. How it will fit 4
into our inspection program, which report, I dont 5
know that.
6 MR. BERKOW: All of this will be 7
determined and we will document it and respond to 8
the petitioner.
9 MR. WILLIAMS: My question is when will 10 there be a response from the NRC?
11 MR. BERKOW: Well, in a reasonable 12 period of time. I guess --
13 (Telephone interference.)
14 MR. BERKOW: -- probably a matter of 15 several weeks.
16 MR. WILLIAMS: Who was that speaking?
17 Is that Mr. Pulsifer?
18 MR. BERKOW: No. Mr. Berkow.
19 MR. WILLIAMS: So, you would say by the 20 end of the year, certainly there will be a response 21 to Mr. Shadis complaint.
22 MR. BERKOW: Yes. I would think so.
23 MR. WILLIAMS: Okay. Ill call back then 24 and get that. Thank you.
25
17 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 MR. BERKOW: Certainly.
1 MR. PULSIFER: Mr. Shadis, any other 2
comments? Questions?
3 MR. SHADIS: Yeah -- well, yes. Thank 4
you. The question is what processes do you propose 5
to use to address the specific concerns laid out in 6
the 2.206?
7 MR. PULSIFER: Again, Mr. Shadis, youre 8
going in and out.
9 MR. SHADIS: Okay, let me try it again.
10 What specific processes do you propose to use to 11 address the specific concerns laid out in the 2.206?
12 MR. BERKOW: It would be treated as 13 controlled correspondence.
14 MR. SHADIS: And that means what?
15 MR. BERKOW: You would get a letter 16 responding back, as opposed to a directors decision.
17 MR. SHADIS: So, if the licensee is 18 careless in the manner in which they report, in 19 which the content of -- their notifications to the 20 NRC, the NRCs response to that is to write me a 21 letter? Is that what I understand?
22 MR. BERKOW: If the NRC finds that the 23 licensee has acted incorrectly, we have other 24 processes to take that up with the licensee. You 25
18 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 will get a response to your concerns.
1 MR. SHADIS: Well, what Im asking for, 2
based on the fact that the licensee sent you a bogus 3
notification -- by their own admission, a 4
notification that their shift supervisor did not 5
read before signing, and that is one issue -- only 6
one of about four that were raising. My question, 7
then, is how do you respond to that, other than to 8
give me information? What do you do to the 9
licensee? What is your enforcement action? Whats 10 the process?
11 (Brief pause.)
12 MR. BERKOW: Youre familiar with our 13 reactor oversight process.
14 MR. SHADIS: I certainly am.
15 MR. BERKOW: Okay. And this would be 16 fed into that process, and appropriate action would 17 be taken, if warranted. That would happen 18 regardless of whether you sent in this letter or 19 not. But you will get a response and you will be 20 advised as to what action will be taken.
21 MR. LOCHBAUM: This is Dave Lochbaum 22 again. From what I gather so far, it sounds like 23 the NRC is going to be complacent with the plant 24 owner putting this matter into its corrective action 25
19 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 program, and then the NRC inspectors will evaluate 1
the corrective action program to see how the issues 2
resolved. But theres the 50.9. They did not 3
provide the NRC with complete and accurate 4
information. That cant be handled under the 5
licensees own corrective action program; thats an 6
NRC issue.
7 You know, its very clearly that they 8
challenged, if not violated, 50.9. I cant see how 9
them kicking it back into a corrective action 10 program that the owner controls is an appropriate 11 way to evaluate whether 50.9 was met or not.
12 MR. BERKOW: Well, to the extent that 13 there may be a 50.9 violation, that would be part of 14 the evaluation process that the staff goes through 15 in evaluating this incident -- and again, thats 16 independent of whether theres a letter from a 17 member of the public raising the issue. Theyre 18 normally evaluated in accordance with the reactor 19 oversight process and the Commissions enforcement 20 policy.
21 Not all violations warrant formal 22 enforcement action. There are different severity 23 levels, ranging from very minor to -- which result 24 in non-cited violations to very significant severity 25
20 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 level 1 violations. So, thats all part of the 1
evaluative process that the staff would routinely 2
undertake in connection with an incident like this.
3 MR. LOCHBAUM: With respect to the 4
Vermont Yankees personnel being familiar with the 5
contents of the FSAR or the RCIC design basis 6
documents, how do you propose to determine whether 7
or not they understand whats in there?
8 (Telephone interference.)
9 MR. PULSIFER: Thats really getting 10 right back to the inspection program. Thats 11 something that well be evaluating to determine what 12 we need to look at. I know the -- does the Region 13 have any particular comment on that?
14 CLIFF ANDERSON: Yeah, this is Cliff 15 Anderson. As a part of the inspection program, we 16 have the license program, but its what weve done 17 and what we continually do. And thats the area 18 where we would look at the knowledge and adequacy of 19 the knowledge of the licensee. The corrective 20 action program -- we have a place to look at 21 licensees response to -- how they deal with the 22 issues, such as (inaudible) issues.
23 And also, we look at -- as Mr. Goldberg 24 said, we look for issues that -- such as a 50.9 25
21 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 issue. We look at them with regard to what their 1
significance are [sic].
2 MR. LOCHBAUM: This is Dave Lochbaum. I 3
have one process question. If, instead of 4
submitting a 2.206, Mr. Shadis were to submit an 5
allegation that personnel at Vermont Yankee didnt 6
have knowledge and awareness and so on, as he 7
mentioned earlier, would the staff be able to paper 8
away his allegation the same way youre papering 9
away his 2.206, or would that be a little bit 10 harder?
11 MR. BERKOW: That would be put into the 12 allegation process and itll be treated under that 13 process, and the alleger would get a response in the 14 same manner that the petitioner or proposed 15 petitioner would get a response to this. I dont 16 think that would make any difference, whether it was 17 submitted as an allegation or the way it was 18 submitted.
19 MR. LOCHBAUM: I dont either, and I 20 think thats sad.
21 MR. BERKOW: The staff actions will be 22 the same and the response to you will be the same.
23 MR. SHADIS: This is Ray Shadis again.
24 I just want to suggest to you that NRC is now going 25
22 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 to, according to you gentlemen, undertake a review 1
of the licensees responsibility in terms of 2
providing accurate information, the licensees 3
responsibilities in terms of making certain that 4
their design basis documents reflect the real world 5
and that the employees are familiar with them. You 6
know, these are things that youre committing to 7
under the ROP. And I want to suggest to you that 8
there should be no hesitation to commit to those 9
actions as a part of the response to the 2.206 10 petition that was filed.
11 MR. BERKOW: I think what the staff is 12 committing to is to follow the ROP, whatever the ROP 13 requires, not necessary the commitments that youre 14 interpreting. The ROP is prescriptive, and it 15 defines what shall be done. And that is what were 16 committing to, to follow that process.
17 MR. SHADIS: Well, I want to tell you 18 that on the onset, the ROP is not prescriptive. The 19 ROP at the onset is discretionary in terms of the 20 inspector or NRC personnel determining whether or 21 not any issues rise to significance to be included 22 in the ROP.
23 MR. BERKOW: Thats right. There are 24 various thresholds that are defined in the process.
25
23 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 MR. SHADIS: Thats right. So, at this 1
spin -- and many of those really have to do with 2
professional discretion on the part of the agency.
3 So, I am suggesting to you now, since we raised this 4
issue with you folks, that indeed your application 5
should be a response to the 2.206 as well as saying, 6
well, this is what we would ordinarily do anyway.
7 Im offering that.
8 I think -- finally, I am going to 9
suggest if you have any feedback to your executive 10 levels or to the commission level, that if your 11 internal management directive is going to be used as 12 a document to vet 2.206s coming in and there are 13 some thresholds established there for the amount of 14 information thats required, that that document 15 needs to be referenced in the regulation. The 16 regulation, as you know, is there for the public as 17 well as for the NRC. So, you know, Id like to see 18 that up front so we dont waste ink and postage.
19 MR. BERKOW: Well, we dont reference 20 management directives in the regulation. The 21 management directive is a public document that has 22 public input. And its been out there for a while.
23 I think we understand your concerns, and 24 we will, you know, respond accordingly. Do you have 25
24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 anything else to add?
1 MR. SHADIS: I want to ask now, theres 2
an opportunity -- I presume this is going to come 3
out of NRR, the Directors decision?
4 MR. BERKOW: Well, the response will 5
come out of NRR.
6 MR. SHADIS: Will there be a directors 7
decision?
8 MR. BERKOW: No, no -- it will only be a 9
director decision if its accepted for review under 10 the 2.206.
11 MR. SHADIS: I see.
12 MR. PULSIFER: If not, it will come out 13 as a letter.
14 MR. SHADIS: I see.
15 MR. BERKOW: And it will be NRR.
16 MR. SHADIS: I see. Well, I dont know 17 that we can -- theres anything further that we can 18 do here, productively do. I will ask you please to 19 address the issues that Ive raised in the 2.206 20 when you write to me, point by point, and provide 21 some kind of information as to how they are going to 22 be handled.
23 MR. BERKOW: Okay. Region, any 24 comments?
25
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 REGION REPRESENTATIVE: No. I dont 1
think we have anything to add.
2 MR. PULSIFER: Licensee.
3 LICENSEE REPRESENTATIVE: We have no 4
comments.
5 MR. PULSIFER: Resident?
6 RESIDENT INSPECTOR: We have nothing to 7
add.
8 MR. PULSIFER: Okay. Thank you very 9
much.
10 MR. SHADIS: Thank you. Good afternoon.
11 (Off the record.)
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21